Search

Charles Parham's racism is well known, but the relationship between his racism, his ecclesiology, and his doctrine of Spirit baptism and "missionary tongues" is still not fully appreciated. Early in the pentecostal movement, Pentecostals rejected Parham and quickly abandoned his doctrine of xenolalia alone as "the Bible evidence" of Spirit baptism. But Ashon Crawley's recent work suggests that the logic of Parham's racist/colonialist doctrine left a lasting mark on (white) pentecostal theology and practice. In the first parts of the article I explore the effects of racism and colonialism on Pentecostalism, and in the final section I respond to that history by proposing, in conversation with William Seymour's teachings, a doctrine of mission and tongues-speech that purposefully contradicts the "white-settler" logic of Parham's teachings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psalm 88 is unrelentingly dark; it is the only one of the lament psalms that does not turn at some point to praise. How are we to read it? First, primarily, we should read it christologically—as witness to the experience of Christ. Read in this way, the Psalms give us insight into the passion narrative. Second, we should ask how the text matters for us as Pentecostals. It calls us away from triumphalism, requiring us to take seriously the experience of god-forsakenness, and forcing us to reimagine our core beliefs and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the theological and pastoral significance of a notoriously troubled and troubling text, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, asking what this text's difficulties have to teach us about the purpose of Scripture in the church's life of worship and witness. It does so, first, by an explication of the text's "literal sense," and then by examination of its effective history, especially as exemplified in the works of John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Karl Barth. This, in turn, leads to a brief survey of various modern interpretations, such as those offered by Gordon Fee, William Webb, and Lucy Peppiatt. Finally, the article turns to the construction of a possible alternative reading, one that is hopefully better fitted to pentecostal spirituality and theology and, just for that reason, also holds ecumenical promise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of interpretation indicates that Christian interpretations take Romans 9-11 as a single, coherently designed statement of doctrine. There are, of course, disagreements within the consensus, but most readers seem to share two basic assumptions: (1) the apostle had a particular point to make, which he crafted with perfect success, and (2) a good reading of the passage discovers that point and makes it understandable so it can be used to build or support a particular Christian teaching. At an angle to that tradition, I want to suggest that Romans 9-11 can perhaps also (if not more) fruitfully be read not as a tidy doctrinal treatise but as a torrid theological performance, a transfiguring work of art staged as a series of rhetorical moves and countermoves that in the end leaves us not with nothing but with more than we dared to imagine possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the relationship of Scripture to the Lord's Supper in and for Pentecostal theology and praxis, drawing on a figurative reading of the story of the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24) as a paradigm. The paper's central claim is that faithful eucharistic participation is indispensable to the faithful reading of Scripture - and vice versa. It is just as our lives are consumed by the Eucharist event that our eyes are opened to see the Jesus of whom the Scriptures testify and that we are made apt for the transforming work of the Spirit. On this basis, a call is made for a robust and authentically Pentecostal sacramentality to Orient and ground uses of Scripture in and by the Pentecostal ecclesial community. In addition to fellow Pentecostals, dialogue partners from the wider Christian tradition are also engaged, including, most prominently, Rowan Williams, Jean-Luc Marion, and Robert W. Jenson. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]